DC COMICS ANNUALS COVER GALLERY - PART THREE...

Images copyright DC COMICS

A mixture of Giants, Annuals and Samplers this time around, folks.  You can just imagine all the goodies contained in such great magazines, especially the last two.  The only thing I don't like about the two DC COMICS PRESENTS titles is that the pages are glossy paper instead of the matte paper used in the the FLASH, BATMAN, and SUPERMAN replica Giants.  That aside, the contents of the JACK KIRBY one in particular are good.

One day I'll get around to showing you similar publications of this kind, except next time they'll be originals, not replicas.  So remember - don't forget to "Keep up with Crivens!" - you wouldn't want to miss something great.

PART TWO Of DC COMICS ANNUALS COVER GALLERY...

Images copyright DC COMICS

Following on from Part One, here are some more cracking covers from various DC COMICS' replica 80 Page Giants and retro Annuals - and all for you, you lucky Criv-ites.  So, let's not waste another second with any woeful waffle from me - the pretty pictures are waiting!

  

DC COMICS ANNUALS COVER GALLERY - PART ONE...

Images copyright DC COMICS

I don't think I've enjoyed any modern DC comicbook for a number of years now.  Mainly due, I suppose, to the fact that nowadays the characters no longer seem to be the same ones I grew up reading.  However, one thing I do enjoy is when DC publishes replica Annuals and Giants, as well as Annuals and Giants that never were, but should have been.

Here, then, is the first part of a cover gallery featuring some of those very comicbooks that DC does so well.  I just wish they'd do more of them.  What say the rest of you?

The original cover was by NEAL ADAMS & DICK GIORDANO, though the
replica sports a re-creation by Giordano himself (for some reason)

MARVEL'S TARZAN COVER GALLERY...

TARZAN copyright The Estate of EDGAR RICE BURROUGHS

Remember when DC COMICS took over the TARZAN comicbook franchise from GOLD KEY in the early '70s?  Drawn by JOE KUBERT, it seemed that no other contemporary artist of the time was more suited to the legendary ape-man than the renowned illustrator of TOR and HAWKMAN (and loads of other characters too, of course).

However, there was one other who was equally equipped for the task, and that was JOHN BUSCEMA, who freelanced for DC's main rival, the MARVEL COMICS GROUP.  When Marvel acquired the rights to produce Tarzan comics in 1977, it was to Big John that the pencilling chores (and, initially, the inking too) were entrusted.

Buscema wanted to draw Tarzan more along the lines of CONAN; that is, a beefy, brawny battler with a wild mane of hair, as opposed to the lean, wasp-waisted, follicly-groomed HAL FOSTER or BURNE HOGARTH version that most readers were familiar with.  However, the estate of ERB had final say on how the lord of the jungle was depicted, so Big John had to adhere to the established comicbook look of the character.

I don't have too many Marvel Tarzan mags in my collection, only what you see here, but I'm sure you'll enjoy these few examples all the same.

SUPERMAN, YOU'RE DEAD... DEAD... DEAD...

Images copyright DC COMICS

I first read this neat little tale in the SPRING BOOKS printing of SUPERMAN: From The '30s To The '70s back in 1972.  A few years later, it was reprinted in a sort of 'sampler' version of the book; same cover, far fewer pages, and simply called Superman.  I passed on it at the time because two pages were omitted from this story, but I eventually picked up a copy many years later (and a good few years back).  I also managed to obtain the original U.S. comic quite a while ago, and it's great to see the story in full colour.  Being an unselfish sort, I decided to share a few pages with you here, so I hope you enjoy them.  Let me know your reaction via the captivating Criv-ites comments section.

JASPER The GRASPER By KEN REID...

Copyright REBELLION

Here's a little treat for all fans of the late, great KEN REID's art - the first episode of JASPER The GRASPER from WHAM! #42, cover-dated April 3rd 1965.  Ken only drew six episodes in total before the strip came to an end, but it was revived for COR!! in the early '70s, under the drawing pen of TREVOR METCALFE.

Want to see more?  Then let me know via the comments section.

'FAMOUS FIRSTS': THE DEBUT OF KID KONG...

Copyright REBELLION

ROBERT T. NIXON was a fantastic cartoonist, who was right up there amongst the very best that this country ever had to offer.  However, if you're a long-standing fan of comics, you don't need me to tell you how accomplished he was.  Here he is drawing KID KONG from (surprise, surprise) MONSTER FUN #1.  Makes it look easy, doesn't he?

THAT'S A SLINKY LITTLE NUMBER...

SLINKY it was called - and it was (slinky, that is).   It was 1969 and my family were holidaying in Largs for the second year running.  If I recall correctly, we were in a shop with a display of this particular toy in action and, being impressed, my brother immediately bought one.  I still remember, holiday over and back home ('cos our rented holiday abode was a single-storey residence), observing Slinky descending the hall stairs.  It really seemed like a thing alive, so my delicate eardrums were grateful for the absence of COLIN CLIVE's histrionics as this amazing toy performed its perambulations for our entertainment and enjoyment.

Maybe one day new versions of Slinky will be able to make their way up the stairs as well as down.  Should that ever happen, I'll be sure to buy another one.  In the meantime, here's the 'lad' himself.  (A replacement for the one we had in the '60s.)

THE VULCAN THAT ISN'T SPOCK...

Copyright REBELLION

What defines a thing as rare?  Being hard to find surely qualifies you'd think, but here's something that seems to be an exception - VULCAN Annual 1977.  What makes me say that?  Very simple.  When my original copy of this book sustained some cover damage a few years back, I sought out another copy on eBay.  I soon had four copies to keep my original company, and each of them was described in its eBay listing as being 'extremely rare'.

I've since seen several other copies of the book available on the Internet, which have also been described as 'rare'.  In fact, I've probably seen more copies of this particular Annual for sale than any other, all within a relatively short space of time.  It pops up quite regularly, in fact.  Not exactly my definition of rare, but then again,  I'm not trying to punt one for a few more quid than it's actually worth.

Still a nice little Annual though.  And, if you'd like to see The TRIGAN EMPIRE tale depicted on the cover, then click on BIFF! and feed your hungry eyes.  (Update: Now removed, alas.) 

'FAMOUS FIRSTS': THE DEBUT OF DRACULASS...

Copyright REBELLION

Any comics collector of a certain age worth his salt knows who TERRY BAVE is. Terry was one of the stalwarts of the British comics industry for around 40 years, and contributed to many well-known weekly periodicals like WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, BUSTER, WHIZZER & CHIPS, SHIVER & SHAKE, WHOOPEE, WOW!, MONSTER FUN, SCHOOL FUN, BEANO and DANDY.  (And that's just a few of them!)

Here's Terry's strip from MONSTER FUN #1 - the one and only DRACULASS - DAUGHTER OF DRACULA!  Terry had the knack of making drawing look easy, and that takes real talent.

YOWZA! PART FOUR Of SMASH! COVER GALLERY...

Copyright REBELLION

You know, when I think about it, I realise that I bought 'new' SMASH! in spite of the covers, not because of them.  After all, they didn't reflect the comic's contents and I doubt they attracted anyone who wasn't already a regular reader, perhaps having continued to purchase the paper from its ODHAMS days.

I say that because the WARRIORS Of The WORLD series, which lasted for 46 issues, had too much of an 'educational' slant, that, as we know, is anathema to most young boys.  (Unless you're CYRIL SWOT, of course, who'd probably zealously buy LOOK & LEARN - and not for The TRIGAN EMPIRE.)

Having said that though, due to the childhood memories associated with each cover, I now have a distinct fondness for them that I wouldn't have had at the time. However, I feel that the series would've been better placed on the back covers, with the front of the comic featuring symbolic 'splash pages' of JANUS STARK, CURSITOR DOOM, MASTER Of The MARSH, etc.  (It's not as though they were short of strips to choose from.)

I think such scenes would've been a bigger draw to potential buyers than what was used, but I guess it's easy to be wise after the event.  If you have an opinion on the matter, feel free to share it in the comments section. 

PERCEPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS DEPT - HOW THINGS ARE, OR HOW THINGS SEEM TO BE?

This is going to be a difficult one to express because it's kind of a nebulous concept, but I'm willing to give it a go if you are.  Ready?  Do houses, neighbourhoods and places have a particular 'ambiance' all their own, or does it all depend on the 'eye of the beholder'?

Oh dear, lost your interest already?  I'll persevere.  When I was about 13, the area I lived in had a particular 'feel' about it.  When I moved house in 1972, aged 13 and a half, that 'atmosphere', 'feeling', 'mood' - call it what you will - continued in my new home and street, and I've wondered over the years whether that was something to do with both houses sitting atop a hill.

You see, when I'd come out of either of those houses, I'd stand at the top of a hill and view the horizon in the distance, giving me a feeling of being 'master of all I surveyed'.  As I walked down (literally) either of those streets, the horizon became less visible on the descent, and it's only natural to wonder if my similar experiences of both places is what resulted in my parallel perceptions of them.

Or was it nothing to do with that?  Was it just where I was 'at' in my head at that particular time in my life, and was it me projecting my own subjective perceptions onto both neighbourhoods that accounts for how I regarded them at the time, rather than how they objectively were?  In short, was it how I imagined them rather than how they really were that determined my perceptions?

Had I lived in either of those houses at different times in my life than when I did, perhaps I'd have 'sensed' and responded to those surroundings in another way; perhaps the ambiance, as it appeared to me, would have been different at 19 than it was at 13, who knows?

Perhaps we just 'see', 'sense', 'feel', 'experience', etc., things in particular ways at different times in our lives, irrespective of how things happen to be.  Could it be that we project our own sense of a place onto it, rather than respond to how that place actually is?  All I know is that, these days, whenever I walk down either of the two streets mentioned, although I can remember how things 'used to be', I'm all too painfully aware that they seem different somehow, in ways that I can't fully articulate.

Of course, other contributory factors must be considered, one being that at the foot of the first hill was a school I attended as a boy in the 1960s.  At that time, WHAM! comic was reprinting the adventures of The FANTASTIC FOUR, and on winter afternoons after school I would see the building interiors lit up in the darkness as the cleaners set about their business.

From the top of the second hill (but farther away) I could see another school of a similar design, which, when viewed in the same wintry conditions, reminded me of the school in my previous neighbourhood.  At the time (early '70s), The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL was reprinting those same FF tales, so perhaps the 'deja-vu' type sensation created in my subconscious can hardly be considered surprising.  Then again, maybe not.

   

When we look back on our childhoods much later in life, summers always seem to have been longer, skies bluer, winters whiter, Christmases snowier, etc. - but were they?  Or is it simply the case that's only how we viewed things at the time (or imagined them later), rather than how they actually were?  Time changes all things, alas, but oft-times far too quickly.

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?  (Presuming, of course, that I managed to express my thoughts in any way resembling a coherent one.)